Clinical practice guidelines for delirium management: potential application in palliative care

Adaptation, implementation, and mixed methods evaluation of an interprofessional modular clinical practice guideline for delirium management on an inpatient palliative care unit

BACKGROUND

Using delirium clinical guidelines may align interprofessional clinical practice and improve the care of delirious patients and their families. The aim of this project was to adapt, implement and evaluate an interprofessional modular delirium clinical practice guideline for an inpatient palliative care unit.

METHODS

The setting was a 31-bed adult inpatient palliative care unit within a university-affiliated teaching hospital. Participants for the evaluation were interprofessional team members. Using integration of guideline adaptation and an education initiative, an interprofessional guideline adaptation group developed a face-to-face 'starter kit' module and four online self-learning modules. The mixed methods evaluation comprised pre-and post-implementation review of electronic patient records, an online survey, and analysis of focus groups/ interviews using an iterative, inductive thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Guideline implementation took 12 months. All palliative care unit staff attended a 'starter kit' session. Overall completion rate of the four e-Learning modules was 80.4%. After guideline implementation, nursing documentation of non-pharmacological interventions occurring before medication administration was observed. There was 60% less scheduled antipsychotic use and an increase in 'as needed' midazolam use. The online survey response rate was 32% (25/77). Most participants viewed the guideline's implementation favourably. Six key themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups with ten participants: prior delirium knowledge or experiences, challenges of facilitating change, impacts on practice, collaborative effort of change, importance of standardized guidelines, and utility of guideline elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline implementation warrants concerted effort, time, and management support. Interprofessional team support facilitates the modular approach of guideline adaptation and implementation, leading to a change in clinical practice.

Safety and effectiveness of antipsychotic medication for delirium in patients with advanced cancer: A large-scale multicenter prospective observational study in real-world palliative care settings

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the safety and effectiveness of antipsychotic medication for delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study involving consecutive patients with advanced cancer and delirium receiving antipsychotics in inpatient hospices or psycho-oncology settings. Adjusted mean scores of the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS; range: 0-39) were calculated at baseline and Day 3 using generalized estimating equations. Adverse events over 7 days were evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 756 patients were analyzed (Mage = 72 ± 11 years, 62% male, 48% bedridden). The adjusted mean DRS score significantly decreased after antipsychotics administration (21.5 [95% confidence interval 19.5 to 23.4] to 20.8 [18.9 to 22.8], p = 0.03, effect size [ES] = 0.02). Significant improvement was associated with age of 75 or older (ES = 0.07), better performance status (0.32), longer estimated prognosis (0.25), psycho-oncological consultation settings (0.20), hyperactive (0.14) or mix-motor subtypes (0.24) of delirium, and quetiapine administration (0.19); significant deterioration was observed in patients with "days" prognosis (0.18). Extrapyramidal symptoms (9.8%) and somnolence (8.5%) were the most prevalent adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antipsychotics as part of comprehensive delirium management was safe and may provide some symptomatic benefits for patients with terminal illness and delirium. Along with adequate non-pharmacological interventions, judicious use of antipsychotics is still recommended.

A qualitative study of nursing staff experiences of delirium in the hospice setting

BACKGROUND:

Delirium is a common condition occurring in 13-42% of people admitted to palliative care units and up to 88% of these patients are at the end of their lives. It is frequently unrecognised and distressing to all those affected-patients, families and health professionals. In addition, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding its trajectory and optimal management, both of which can be inconsistent.

AIMS:

This study aims to explore the experience of nursing staff who are caring for patients with delirium in the hospice environment and understand any potential barriers to its management.

METHODS:

Semistructured interviews using emotional touchpoints were conducted with 12 nurses and six healthcare assistants in three hospices in North East England. Data was analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.

FINDINGS:

The results highlighted gaps in knowledge and understanding in the management of delirium. The results demonstrated delirium had significant emotional effects, which were associated with uncertainty in managing the condition and the impact of this uncertainty on the relationship between staff and patients.

CONCLUSION:

This study highlights the emotional impact of caring for patients with delirium. Future work is needed to address the areas of uncertainty identified and ascertain how to best support nursing staff in these challenges.

Clinical Assessment and Management of Delirium in the Palliative Care Setting

Delirium is a neurocognitive syndrome arising from acute global brain dysfunction, and is prevalent in up to 42% of patients admitted to palliative care inpatient units. The symptoms of delirium and its associated communicative impediment invariably generate high levels of patient and family distress. Furthermore, delirium is associated with significant patient morbidity and increased mortality in many patient populations, especially palliative care where refractory delirium is common in the dying phase. As the clinical diagnosis of delirium is frequently missed by the healthcare team, the case for regular screening is arguably very compelling. Depending on its precipitating factors, a delirium episode is often reversible, especially in the earlier stages of a life-threatening illness. Until recently, antipsychotics have played a pivotal role in delirium management, but this role now requires critical re-evaluation in light of recent research that failed to demonstrate their efficacy in mild- to moderate-severity delirium occurring in palliative care patients. Non-pharmacological strategies for the management of delirium play a fundamental role and should be optimized through the collective efforts of the whole interprofessional team. Refractory agitated delirium in the last days or weeks of life may require the use of pharmacological sedation to ameliorate the distress of patients, which is invariably juxtaposed with increasing distress of family members. Further evaluation of multicomponent strategies for delirium prevention and treatment in the palliative care patient population is urgently required.

Neuroleptics in the management of delirium in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Delirium is the most common and distressing neuropsychiatric syndrome in cancer patients. Few evidence-based treatment options are available due to the paucity of high quality of studies. In this review, we shall examine the literature on the use of neuroleptics to treat delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Specifically, we will discuss the randomized controlled trials that examined neuroleptics in the front line setting, and studies that explore second-line options for patients with persistent agitation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contemporary management of delirium includes identification and management of any potentially reversible causes, coupled with nonpharmacological approaches. For patients who do not respond adequately to these measures, pharmacologic measures may be required. Haloperidol is often recommended as the first-line treatment option, and other neuroleptics such as olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine represent potential alternatives. For patients with persistent delirium despite first-line neuroleptics, the treatment strategies include escalating the dose of the same neuroleptic, rotation to another neuroleptic, or combination therapy (i.e., the addition of a second neuroleptic or other agent). We will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and the available evidence to support each strategy.

SUMMARY

Adequately powered, randomized trials involving proper control interventions are urgently needed to define the optimal treatment strategies for delirium in the oncology setting.

Clinical Assessment and Management of Delirium in the Palliative Care Setting

Delirium is a neurocognitive syndrome arising from acute global brain dysfunction, and is prevalent in up to 42% of patients admitted to palliative care inpatient units. The symptoms of delirium and its associated communicative impediment invariably generate high levels of patient and family distress. Furthermore, delirium is associated with significant patient morbidity and increased mortality in many patient populations, especially palliative care where refractory delirium is common in the dying phase. As the clinical diagnosis of delirium is frequently missed by the healthcare team, the case for regular screening is arguably very compelling. Depending on its precipitating factors, a delirium episode is often reversible, especially in the earlier stages of a life-threatening illness. Until recently, antipsychotics have played a pivotal role in delirium management, but this role now requires critical re-evaluation in light of recent research that failed to demonstrate their efficacy in mild- to moderate-severity delirium occurring in palliative care patients. Non-pharmacological strategies for the management of delirium play a fundamental role and should be optimized through the collective efforts of the whole interprofessional team. Refractory agitated delirium in the last days or weeks of life may require the use of pharmacological sedation to ameliorate the distress of patients, which is invariably juxtaposed with increasing distress of family members. Further evaluation of multicomponent strategies for delirium prevention and treatment in the palliative care patient population is urgently required.

Delirium assessed by Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale in advanced cancer patients admitted to an acute palliative/supportive care unit

BACKGROUND

Delirium is often unrecognized in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of delirium assessed by the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and possible associated factors on admission to an acute palliative/supportive care unit (APSCU). The secondary outcome was to assess changes in MDAS and symptom burden at time of discharge.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of advanced cancer patients who were admitted to an APSCU was prospectively assessed for a period of 10 months. Patient demographics, including age, gender, primary diagnosis, Karnofsky status, stage of disease, and educational level were collected. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the MDAS were measured at hospital admission and discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 314 patients were surveyed. Of 292 patients with MDAS available at T0, 74 (25.3%) and 24 (8.2%) had a MDAS of 7-12 and ≥13, respectively. At discharge, there was a significant decrease in the number of patients with a MDAS ≥7/30. Higher values of MDAS were associated with age (p = .028), a lower Karnofsky status (p < .0005), gender (male, p = .04), low level of education (p = .002), less awareness of disease (p < .0005), more indications for end-of-life care admission (p < .0005) or other symptoms (p = .026), hospital stay (p = .038) and death (p < .0005). Significant decreases in ESAS were observed in all patients independently of MDAS values (p < .0005).

CONCLUSION

Delirium is highly prevalent in patients admitted to APSCU, characterized by a low mortality due to early referral. Comprehensive assessment and treatment may allow a decrease in the level of cognitive disorders and symptom burden.

Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality.

DESIGN

Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies.Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a 'Rigour of Development' domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search.

RESULTS

3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II 'Rigour' scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (mean 80.1%, range 64-100%) and 'Clarity and Presentation' (mean 76.7%, range 38-97%). The lowest rating domains were 'Applicability' (mean 48.7%, range 8-81%) and 'Editorial Independence' (mean 53%, range 2-90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the 'Applicability' domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice.

Pain Intensity and Misconceptions Among Hospice Patients With Cancer and Their Caregivers: Status After 2 Decades

There is little evidence about barriers to pain management or their relationships with pain outcomes of hospice patients with cancer. The purpose of the study was to determine the barriers reported by hospice patients with cancer and their caregivers and the relationships with demographic characteristics and the patients’ pain. In this cross-sectional study, we used selected baseline data from an ongoing randomized clinical trial of patient and lay caregiver dyads receiving home-level hospice care. Participants used an Internet-enabled tablet to complete the valid, reliable measures of pain intensity, pain management barriers (Barriers Questionnaire 13 items [BQ-13]), and demographic characteristics. The responses indicate that the 2 areas of highest concern (mean scores >3) to both patients and caregivers were “pain means disease progression” and “constipation.” Additionally, 3 other areas of highest concern (mean scores >3) to caregivers were “addiction” pain medicine causing “one to do embarrassing things” and “confusion.” The mean BQ-13 scores ranged from 0.2 to 4.9 and averaged 2.6 ± 0.9 for the patients and ranged from 0.5 to 4.7 and averaged 2.7 ± 0.9 for the caregivers. Mean barrier scores remain high and were not different between patients and their caregivers or significantly related to the patients’ pain intensity. However, there were differences in race, ethnic, and hospice setting in the barrier scores. Patients with Hispanic heritage reported higher barrier scores than non-Hispanic patients. Together, these findings not only support prior research findings but also contribute new insights about pain intensity and pain barriers that are relevant to hospices serving minorities with cancer.

Delirium diagnosis, screening and management

Purpose of review

Our review focuses on recent developments across many settings regarding the diagnosis, screening and management of delirium, so as to inform these aspects in the context of palliative and supportive care.

Recent findings

Delirium diagnostic criteria have been updated in the long-awaited Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition. Studies suggest that poor recognition of delirium relates to its clinical characteristics, inadequate interprofessional communication and lack of systematic screening. Validation studies are published for cognitive and observational tools to screen for delirium. Formal guidelines for delirium screening and management have been rigorously developed for intensive care, and may serve as a model for other settings. Given that palliative sedation is often required for the management of refractory delirium at the end of life, a version of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, modified for palliative care, has undergone preliminary validation.

Summary

Although formal systematic delirium screening with brief but sensitive tools is strongly advocated for patients in palliative and supportive care, it requires critical evaluation in terms of clinical outcomes, including patient comfort. Randomized controlled trials are needed to inform the development of guidelines for the management of delirium in this setting.

Management of delirium in palliative care: a review

Delirium is a complex but common disorder in palliative care with a prevalence between 13 and 88 % but a particular frequency at the end of life (terminal delirium). By reviewing the most relevant studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLit, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library), a correct assessment to make the diagnosis (e.g., DSM-5, delirium assessment tools), the identification of the possible etiological factors, and the application of multicomponent and integrated interventions were reported as the correct steps to effectively manage delirium in palliative care. In terms of medications, both conventional (e.g., haloperidol) and atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole) were shown to be equally effective in the treatment of delirium. No recommendation was possible in palliative care regarding the use of other drugs (e.g., α-2 receptors agonists, psychostimulants, cholinesterase inhibitors, melatonergic drugs). Non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., behavioral and educational) were also shown to be important in the management of delirium. More research is necessary to clarify how to more thoroughly manage delirium in palliative care.

An analytical framework for delirium research in palliative care settings: integrated epidemiologic, clinician-researcher, and knowledge user perspectives

CONTEXT

Delirium often presents difficult management challenges in the context of goals of care in palliative care settings.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to formulate an analytical framework for further research on delirium in palliative care settings, prioritize the associated research questions, discuss the inherent methodological challenges associated with relevant studies, and outline the next steps in a program of delirium research.

METHODS

We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting, relevant literature searches, focused input of epidemiologic expertise, and a meeting participant and coauthor survey to formulate a conceptual research framework and prioritize research questions.

RESULTS

Our proposed framework incorporates three main groups of research questions: the first was predominantly epidemiologic, such as delirium occurrence rates, risk factor evaluation, screening, and diagnosis; the second covers pragmatic management questions; and the third relates to the development of predictive models for delirium outcomes. Based on aggregated survey responses to each research question or domain, the combined modal ratings of "very" or "extremely" important confirmed their priority.

CONCLUSION

Using an analytical framework to represent the full clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care settings, we identified multiple knowledge gaps in relation to the occurrence rates, assessment, management, and outcome prediction of delirium in this population. The knowledge synthesis generated from adequately powered, multicenter studies to answer the framework's research questions will inform decision making and policy development regarding delirium detection and management and thus help to achieve better outcomes for patients in palliative care settings.